"How would you feel if your neighbor went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard,” he said. “It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?"

"I'm not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratize the ability to fight war to every single human being,” he said. "It's got to be regulated... It's one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they're doing, but have other people doing it... it's not going to happen."

Schmidt has previously made similar remarks to the British newspaper in January 2013.

"Terrorists and criminals could use drones to carry IEDs [improvised explosive devices]—that could result in conflict between civil and military drones," he said. "Or it could happen over the US-Mexico border. Maybe we'll even see the world's first drone strike against cyber-terrorists. That's how seriously evil part of this [growth in technology] could be.”

His remarks came just days after Idaho’s governor signed a bill into law that now requires a warrant to collect evidence from drones. The bill goes on to impose other related restrictions on drone use by law enforcement.

Promoted Comments

Presumably people will feel much the same same about their neighbour taking photos of their homes from a self-flying plane as they do to Google street view taking photos of their homes from a self-driving car.

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

Presumably people will feel much the same same about their neighbour taking photos of their homes from a self-flying plane as they do to Google street view taking photos of their homes from a self-driving car.

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

Of course he's worried: from where he's standing, only the government and big corporations should be permitted to run mass surveillance programs. God forbid citizens should be able to do the same to them. (I may be overinterpreting things, but the tendencies of these last few years makes me wary of messages from the Googleplex.)

Yes, there are huge problems with sousveillance and the erosion of privacy. But the genie is out of the bottle: let's not build further fundaments for an oligarchic state. Even though the playing field never will be even, and freedom still is heavily circumscribed by your economic means, I'm with David Brin on this. A functioning society requires checks and balances. This includes mutual transparency between citizens and state. http://davidbrin.blogspot.se/2012/07/on ... r-and.html

I think it's pretty clear that he's taking issue with the persistent collection of data without any consent. A "snapshot" view of the front of my house, taken every few months, tells you almost nothing unless that's the moment the mistress chose to drive over.

With persistent monitoring you can get pretty serious information.

Up until now, collection of data in non-private spaces has been limited due to simple inconvenience. You had to have resources on the order of a state agency and park a body out in front of someone's house 24/7 to get high quality persistent data. If drones get to be the sort of thing you can pick up for a few thousand, we're going to have to develop some new rules.

I think it's pretty clear that he's taking issue with the persistent collection of data without any consent. A "snapshot" view of the front of my house, taken every few months, tells you almost nothing unless that's the moment the mistress chose to drive over.

With persistent monitoring you can get pretty serious information.

Up until now, collection of data in non-private spaces has been limited due to simple inconvenience. You had to have resources on the order of a state agency and park a body out in front of someone's house 24/7 to get high quality persistent data. If drones get to be the sort of thing you can pick up for a few thousand, we're going to have to develop some new rules.

So basically he is against everything that persistently monitors the collection of personal information. That needs to be regulated. What Google does every day should be regulated and controlled as well. They have been collecting data in private spaces for over a decade.

Sounds like a great opportunity for manufactures of surface-to-air missiles.

Someone flies over your airspace with their drone, just shoot it down.

We have a right to bear arms, RIGHT?

Could be come a new and popular sport. Instead of hunting animals, shoot down drones. Photograph and upload your trophys. Have competitions, in fact some peeps could make drones and others shoot down. Great fun.

Can't take Google's concerns about privacy seriously. Trying to be "right on" again....

I dont think theres much anyone can do to stop little privately owned drones to be honest. You can pick up a small rc plane or heli and fit a camera on it for not much money at all. I have built one myself, and its facinating seeing the local area from above.I think the problem comes when someone uses a more expensive aircraft equiped with powerful cameras and persistantly flys it over someones property to spy rather than just get cool arial footage.You would like to think existing stalking/privacy/harrassment laws already cover this, with no need for extra legislation that further limits what the average tinkerer can legally do.And yes, if I spotted someone hovering one of these things over my property day in day out, it would get shot down and its corpse displayed prominently hanging from the nearest tree.

I dont think theres much anyone can do to stop little privately owned drones to be honest. You can pick up a small rc plane or heli and fit a camera on it for not much money at all. I have built one myself, and its facinating seeing the local area from above.I think the problem comes when someone uses a more expensive aircraft equiped with powerful cameras and persistantly flys it over someones property to spy rather than just get cool arial footage.You would like to think existing stalking/privacy/harrassment laws already cover this, with no need for extra legislation that further limits what the average tinkerer can legally do.And yes, if I spotted someone hovering one of these things over my property day in day out, it would get shot down and its corpse displayed prominently hanging from the nearest tree.

You may want to check the laws concerning airspace over your house before you go shooting things down. You may end up in deep shit...

"In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard. Therefore, it appears to trump any individually claimed air rights, near airports especially."

Maybe this is thinking too far ahead, but if/as more local law enforcement are allowed access to drones, would a citizen be able to distinguish between a government drone and a civilian owned drone? Would it matter? If that person shot the drone down like a game of duck hunt, would the end result be legally different if you shot down a government drone versus a civilian owned drone?

Sounds like a great opportunity for manufactures of surface-to-air missiles.

Someone flies over your airspace with their drone, just shoot it down.

We have a right to bear arms, RIGHT?

Could be come a new and popular sport. Instead of hunting animals, shoot down drones. Photograph and upload your trophys. Have competitions, in fact some peeps could make drones and others shoot down. Great fun.

Or they could start to arm those model jet fighters with air-to-air missiles!

Drones, fighters, bombers, ballistic missiles are all covered under the 2nd amendment, right?

Maybe Republicans will believe in science when they can deploy their own home based high-tech war machine?

Why run through a school with a gun when you can order a model drone and strike fighter online to track and strafe kids getting off the school bus?

I can see it now, every school will require an air defense system and escort fighters for the school bus.

Palin 2016

Edit: I guess my humor fell flat with the Republican base. I didn't know they could read!

Also I always thought that some day we would see drones flying everywhere to deliver parcels.

if one company can make this happen it's Google. They're already involved in a 'same-day' delivery service.Why not a 'same-hour' devivery service with small drones landing at your doorstep (or balcony).

Well tons of security, privacy, safety and traffic regulation issues lie ahead for this but well one can dream

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

Then you have a question to deal with. Where does my property rights end? Is at ground level? So you have the right to drive a hovercraft over my lawn and take a picture of it? Or sending in a quad copter at 4 ft to look in windows? For nations airspace runs to around 100km altitude. Private property does not because that would make air travel impossible. The FAA says that aircraft are to fly no lower than 1000ft over any obstruction in congested areas and 500 feet in open areas. If you live in a suburb I would say the 1000ft rule would apply to the vertical claim of your property rights.

Also I always thought that some day we would see drones flying everywhere to deliver parcels.

if one company can make this happen it's Google. They're already involved in a 'same-day' delivery service.Why not a 'same-hour' devivery service with small drones landing at your doorstep (or balcony).

Well tons of security, privacy, safety and traffic regulation issues lie ahead for this but well one can dream

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

The common law and jury systems accept that convention and precedent play an important role in informing what is acceptable behaviour and how the law should treat such behaviour.

When new technologies like drones (or arguably telephoto lenses) change what you can see from a public vantage point, maybe it's time to reconsider the law. I'm fairly sure when the relevant laws were framed people didn't seriously consider the prospect of flying cameras; maybe were thinking more of people walking about on public rights of way.

...As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

The logic for Eric is that his yard and house can't readily be photographed from the ground, but it can be photographed from the air.

But the real reason is that Eric is rich and connected enough to be considered part of the government, and you are not.

Then you have a question to deal with. Where does my property rights end? Is at ground level? So you have the right to drive a hovercraft over my lawn and take a picture of it? Or sending in a quad copter at 4 ft to look in windows? For nations airspace runs to around 100km altitude. Private property does not because that would make air travel impossible. The FAA says that aircraft are to fly no lower than 1000ft over any obstruction in congested areas and 500 feet in open areas. If you live in a suburb I would say the 1000ft rule would apply to the vertical claim of your property rights.

But you can fly a drone over your own property, and get a pretty good shot of your neighbours. Like building a massive observation tower, only practical.

I know in the UK you are not allowed to cause nuisance, or interfere with your neighbours right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. It is under this law that you can't just burn tyres in your garden, or grow a huge hedge that block all the natural light from their garden.

EDIT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance#United_States wrote:

Over the last 1000 years, public nuisance has been used by governmental authorities to stop conduct that was considered quasi-criminal because, although not strictly illegal, it was deemed unreasonable in view of its likelihood to injure someone in the general public. Donald Gifford[14] argues that civil liability has always been an "incidental aspect of public nuisance".[15] Traditionally, actionable conduct involved the blocking of a public roadway, the dumping of sewage into a public river or the blasting of a stereo in a public park.[16] To stop this type of conduct, governments sought injunctions either enjoining the activity that caused the nuisance or requiring the responsible party to abate the nuisance.

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

Um, cause a drone can easily fly over your fence, go to your backyard and take pictures that normally would be defined as trespassing? And some people within their enclosed back yard chose to suntan completely naked.

I dont think theres much anyone can do to stop little privately owned drones to be honest. You can pick up a small rc plane or heli and fit a camera on it for not much money at all. I have built one myself, and its facinating seeing the local area from above.I think the problem comes when someone uses a more expensive aircraft equiped with powerful cameras and persistantly flys it over someones property to spy rather than just get cool arial footage.You would like to think existing stalking/privacy/harrassment laws already cover this, with no need for extra legislation that further limits what the average tinkerer can legally do.And yes, if I spotted someone hovering one of these things over my property day in day out, it would get shot down and its corpse displayed prominently hanging from the nearest tree.

You may want to check the laws concerning airspace over your house before you go shooting things down. You may end up in deep shit...

"In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the sole authority to control all airspace, exclusively determining the rules and requirements for its use. Typically, in the "Uncontrolled" category of airspace, any pilot can fly any aircraft as low as he or she wants, subject to the requirement of maintaining a 500-foot (150 m) distance from people and man-made structures except for purposes of takeoff and landing, and not causing any hazard. Therefore, it appears to trump any individually claimed air rights, near airports especially."

From a quick scan of U.K. air regs, the airspace over my property up to fl195 is class g. Thats unregulated airspace, i could in theory fly a bullet, missile or crossbow bolt up into the air that `accidently` collided with a drone and be in the clear (I think) as there are no limits as to what you can fly in class g airspace and accidents do happen. Your right though, anyone can fly pretty much anything in class g airspace, so a drone could hover 24/7 over my property legally (although privacy laws probably prevent that happening for very long).

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of drones — ANY drones, government or private — buzzing my house and shooting pictures, but it's pretty ironic to have someone from Google say it's a privacy risk. If it's a privacy risk, why isn't what Google does with Street View a privacy risk? I'm not sure they're different.

As an ex-newspaper editor (and reporter/photographer before that), I don't want to end the legality of taking pictures of what's available from public vantage points. I'm just not sure what the legal logic is for banning one type of intrusion from the public right of way and allowing another type.

Um, cause a drone can easily fly over your fence, go to your backyard and take pictures that normally would be defined as trespassing? And some people within their enclosed back yard chose to suntan completely naked.

Yeah. I don't understand everyone hopping on this because it seems like a convenient place to find irony, even getting editor's pick, when the difference between driving down a public street taking pictures and trespassing into your backyard taking pictures should be obvious. Google glass is also no different from a cell phone, its a tool for people to use. Eric is opposing an action, not a tool. But I guess since irony can be found on a superficial level its mildly entertaining to say things like "pot, meet kettle", even though expending any thought would make you realize otherwise.

What exactly is the difference between someone flying a camera over your property and Google send a camera down your street taking pictures? Either way, they're taking pictures of what's publicly available to see, not going inside your property.

There is an enormous difference. I have a fenced backyard that is most definitely not publicly available to see.

Which is creepier: your neighbor across the street installing a security camera that records your front yard, or your next door neighbor building a 50' tower for a camera that records your backyard?